Second bail application rejected absent changed circumstances where the applicant’s distinct role defeats parity.

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 283/2025 registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, for offences under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that 17 bank accounts maintained with South Indian Bank were used to receive proceeds of cyber fraud. Investigation revealed that approximately ₹2,11,10,263/- was credited into the account of co-accused Santosh Kumar, allegedly after the account had been sold to the applicant; another account allegedly sold by co-accused Karan Singh to the applicant received approximately ₹46,61,115/-.

The applicant’s involvement allegedly surfaced through the memorandum statement of co-accused Karan Singh, and he was alleged to have facilitated the opening and use of the bank accounts for routing cyber-fraud proceeds.

A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him.

His first bail application had been rejected on merits on 10 July 2026 in MCRC No. 4502/2026.

In the second application, he relied on parity with co-accused who had been granted bail, the absence of criminal antecedents, his custody since 21 December 2025, and the expected delay in trial.

The State opposed bail on the ground that the applicant’s role was distinct and supported by the material collected during investigation.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In considering bail, the Court assessed the prima-facie nature of the accusations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the gravity of the alleged cyber-fraud offence, and the material collected during investigation.

The principle of parity was applied only where the applicant’s role was comparable to that of the co-accused; parity is not available when the applicant’s role is qualitatively different or supported by distinct incriminating material.

A successive bail application requires consideration of the reasons for rejection of the earlier application and the existence of circumstances warranting a different conclusion.

The Court found that the applicant’s case remained materially distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.

The earlier bail application had been rejected because the investigation disclosed a specific and qualitatively different role attributed to the applicant.

The present allegations connected him with facilitating the opening and use of 17 bank accounts and routing substantial cyber-fraud proceeds through accounts allegedly sold or transferred to him.

The Court therefore declined to apply parity merely because some co-accused had obtained bail, particularly when the State asserted that the applicant’s role was distinct and supported by the investigation material.

The filing of the supplementary charge-sheet did not, by itself, overcome the prima-facie case or the reasons underlying the earlier rejection.

The absence of trial order-sheets also meant that no sufficient basis was shown regarding the actual progress or delay in trial.

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the applicant’s prima-facie involvement, and the unchanged reasons for rejecting the first application, the Court held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.

The Court held that parity was unavailable because the applicant’s alleged role was distinct and more specifically supported by the investigation material.

The trial Court was directed to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial Court for information and compliance.